Thinkpads Forum

T420s Wishlist.

1) Sandybridge
This is a no-brainer.

The graphics improvement makes discrete graphics obsolete for almost all purposes that Thinkpad work users would need. IE9 will support graphics-acceleration and I imagine given the ubiquitous nature of the intel graphics processors, they will support that as a baseline.

This is the reason why I would be upgrading my T42. ==> ancient but it works like a charm for Win XP

2) 4 GB ram minimum
I don't understand why 2 GB is still offered as a choice for a business notebook over $1000.

3) Maintain 16x10 ratio and increase resolution to 1680 x 1050 OR give us back (4:3) 1400x1050 resolution!
I am using a 1400x1050 and I dislike any lose of resolution at the same size. I am very much against the movement for monitor manufacturers to skimp the 1920 x 1200 into the 1920 x 1080 resolution. Either keep the GOLDEN RATIO 16:10 OR give us a higher DPI version of the 16x9 resolutions.

Notice the success of the iPHONE 4 with its marketing of retina level resolution. It works. I am not an iPHONE fan and I love that higher density resolution so keep it.

4) Add in HDMI along with keeping Display Port and VGA as external ports.
The more connectivity for external ports, the better that it will be capable for future big screen LCD presentations

5) Give us a Blu-Ray option
This is clearly the next generation drive with much higher capacity. It would be nice to have a writing capability as the data-backup of 25-50 gigabyte BD technology has a certain appeal over DVDs 4.5 or 8.5 GB.

I imagine T420 would give (1) without a doubt.
(2) is pretty likely too.
(3) is more unlikely. Resolutions and DPI seem to be falling in the recent years for manufacturers.
(4) seems like it is possible. I wouldn't mind too much if it is even an external adapter that bundled with the device to add Display Port-to-HDMI or HDMI-to-Display Port
(5) is possible depending on prices.

In an ideal word, IMO, it is worthwhile to simply remove the larger, bulkier T420 and replace it completely with T420s (Name can change to simply T420 to reflect the integration). The reason I propose this is scale and pricing. If T-series 14.1 inch models only have one version, it would be cheaper to manufacture and market ultimately lowering the final price. The size and weight of T410s is better than T410 in every way while almost matching its performance.

I'm sure with a new platform of integrated graphics into the CPU in Sandybridge, it may be possible to put in higher performing CPU's into a T410s-sized chassis.

My dream feature for the T420s? A lid rollcage.

Some businesses may not really need 2GB of RAM. I bought mine with 2GB and was pretty satisfied with it in everyday usage (except for playing STALKER, in which case it ran low on RAM).

I also want to see a return of non-widescreen; a few tablet or slate devices are appearing in 4:3 again.

---

As for the T420, it's more of a "don't migrate these Edge/SL/L/X100e features":
1) Stick with the current keyboard layout; don't mess with the Function keys as alternatives to media buttons.
2) No glossy screens.
3) Conventional, non-chiclet keycaps (although the Lenovo isolation keycaps aren't all that bad)

And an always valid point:
MORE BATTERY LIFE

Colonel O'Neill wrote:And an always valid point:
MORE BATTERY LIFE

Sandybridge should provide that.

sub-3lb weight; could lose the dvd drive...

bunnyblaster wrote:3) Maintain 16x10 ratio and increase resolution to 1680 x 1050 OR give us back (4:3) 1400x1050 resolution!
I am using a 1400x1050 and I dislike any lose of resolution at the same size. I am very much against the movement for monitor manufacturers to skimp the 1920 x 1200 into the 1920 x 1080 resolution. Either keep the GOLDEN RATIO 16:10 OR give us a higher DPI version of the 16x9 resolutions.

Yeah, the downgrade from 1400x1050 to 1440x900 (13.4% reduction in pixel count) as laptops went from 4:3 to 16:10 was hugely disappointing. 1440x900 is excellent for 12.1" (as in the X20*), acceptable for 13.3" (as in the X30*), but too low for 14.1". Like you, I expect the next T4** will be 16:9, for which the standard res will almost certainly be 1366x768. But I am cautiously hopeful that there will be a high-res option, and it will probably be 1600x900. This is only 2.1% less than 1400x1050, and is already available on a few non-Lenovo 14.0" laptops, e.g. the Dell Studio 14z. Of course, I even hope for 1920x1080, but that's not as likely as 1600x900.

sanjuro wrote:sub-3lb weight; could lose the dvd drive...

I totally agree. Keep the optical drive in the T420, but cut it from the T420s. I really, really long for a large-screen, high-res laptop that's ultraportable. Dell was on the right track when they introduced the 4.5lb 16" Latitude Z, but unfortunately it's marred by a low resolution of 1600x900. My dream laptop would be something like this: 15.4" 1920x1200, no optical drive, very thin display bezel to keep the laptop's footprint small, no more than 4 lbs, and a tiny AC adapter. Such a perfect laptop would certainly make me interested in buying laptops again.

The optical drive by itself is pretty light though. I think there is already a lot of ultra light and ultra thin laptops that compromise functionality. I think a thinkpad should be uncompromising.

I hope they keep all the functionality of a disk drive as it is. It's hard enough to install the initial applications like Office without a drive. I like the option to back stuff up easily and watch movies.

However, the screen quality has to improve. I realize even 1600x900 is even a drop in resolution compared to 1400x1050 so a 1680x1050 would be greatly appreciated on the 14.1 inch if 16x9 is a must.

All signs point towards the next 14" model being 16:9. Which means resolution options will probably be 1366x768 and 1600x900. 1920x1080 is just too insane for 14" in most constellations.

Just pixel count, IMO, is not the correct way to look at resolutions. 1600x900 has roughly the same amount of pixels as 1400x1050, but I would prefer the latter any day, because to me the vertical resolution is more limiting than the horizontal. Depending on your tasks and work habits, your opinion may be diametrically opposite.

bunnyblaster wrote:2) 4 GB ram minimum
I don't understand why 2 GB is still offered as a choice for a business notebook over $1000.

I wouldn't object to offering 4GB RAM as the default, but in this case there should be a downgrade option for people who want to save money.

bunnyblaster wrote:1680x1050 would be greatly appreciated on the 14.1 inch if 16x9 is a must.

1680x1050 is 16:10.

dr_st wrote:All signs point towards the next 14" model being 16:9. Which means resolution options will probably be 1366x768 and 1600x900. 1920x1080 is just too insane for 14" in most constellations.

I agree that many people (including some resolution addicts) would find 1920x1080 too much on a 14.0" screen. But 1600x900 is still not tall enough. Perhaps 1680x945 would be a good compromise, with a reasonable pixel density of 137.68 DPI. This unusual resolution is found on some Toshiba 18.4" laptops.

dr_st wrote:Just pixel count, IMO, is not the correct way to look at resolutions. 1600x900 has roughly the same amount of pixels as 1400x1050, but I would prefer the latter any day, because to me the vertical resolution is more limiting than the horizontal. Depending on your tasks and work habits, your opinion may be diametrically opposite.

Of course shape does matter. For example, 1470000x1 has the exact same pixel count as 1400x1050, but the former is totally useless! A more realistic example: Even though 1600x1200 has 8.8% more pixels than 1680x1050, I very slightly prefer the latter because it's easier to tile two windows side by side, and 1050 pixel rows is enough for most situations. When viewing documents side by side on 1600x1200 (with more overlap than on a 1680x1050 screen), I often have too much unused space at the bottom of the screen. However, many other people might prefer 1600x1200 over 1680x1050.

Now, how about 1600x900 versus 1400x1050? The former makes side-by-side viewing much easier, but 900 pixels is a bit short. So for me, this comparison may be a toss-up.

In conclusion, discussions about resolutions and aspect ratios can get really complicated. For simplicity and to avoid typing super-long posts, I usually just focus on pixel count in these discussions.

USB 3.0 for much faster backup/transfer of data to your portable USB HDD.

Finally no excuses for data backup

I own a T410s... Wish List for Lenovo T420s

1.) SandyBridge
Maybe even the 35 W TDP i7-2620M (i7-2 620M). Graphics performance should increase to that of the Macbook Pro's dedicated 320M GPU (nearly double the integrated Intel HD currently shipping with the T410s).

2.) Higher resolution screen
1680 x 1050 = awesome and maybe they could also reduce the size of the bevels to increase screen size to like 14.5 inches or even 15 inches, i see the room there.

DO NOT USE 16:9 DISPLAY!!! - 16:9 displays are too long, the edges of them are useless, it is not easier to do anything in them. This would be enough for me to not buy a Lenovo at all, I would prob take a performance hit and buy the new Macbook Air if I did not already have a T410s.

3.) Fix the scroll areas on trackpad
The trackpad is the best I have ever used on any computer, BUT the scroll features on the bottom and right side work so poorly they are useless. ASUS does a great job with their scroll areas, you can touch it and it works right way.

4.) Increase battery life.
I love my bay battery, it makes use of that otherwise wasted space. If the number of cells could be increased by one or two more that would be great. 7 cell main + 3 cell bay battery 75 Whr of battery life ~7-8 hours business use. 8 cell main + 3 cell bay = 82.5 Whr for ~8-9 hours business use, enough to last all day on campus. By no means a deal breaker, but the new Macbook Air did increase their 13' model from 5 cells to 7 cells and it is still under 3 pounds.

5.) Decrease weight and size.
Regarding size it is more important that it is thinner than anything else, the current outer dimensions are fine.

I think the current port setup is pretty much perfect IMO. If anything convert one of the 3 USB 2.0 to USB 3.0. DisplayPort is easily converted to HDMI but a dedicated port might make life easier. eSATA can run at 250 MB/s, which makes external hookups worth while.

5.) Make it even more bomb proof.
I love the Mg case and water-resistance, shock resistance etc... I would gladly pay $100 more for continual upgrades to the strength of the system. Fix the [censored] problem with the vertical black line on the screen that many have complained about.

6.) Improve design more
Keep it cool, keep it strong, keep that great keyboard. maybe make the outside of the case more scratch resistant I can see little marks. Making flash memory directly on the board like in the new Macbook Air could save space and maybe wieght. HD could always be upgraded with a PCIe 34 solid state slot drive.

I also love how easy it is to upgrade the system, putting in Kingston Hyper-X 1333 CL7 memory took less than 15 minutes, which includes looking up the information online (searching under SUPPORT), printing it, finding my tools, and installing it.

Side Note 1:
Lenovo SHOULD NOT require 4GB of memory, leave it as an option. The RAM they ship with it is not that good anyway, and I upgraded and now get a Windows 7 experience index of 7.2 in memory compared to the 5.9 from the MSI that shipped with it. It was $105 Newegg, the cost for the Lenovo upgrade from 2GB to 4GB, after discounts was ~$60, I think it was worth it.

Side Note 2:
Get a Solid-state drive, it is beyond amazing. My computer starts up in 21 seconds, it takes less time from cold start than from Hibernation, and starts programs within the first 2 seconds of seeing the taskbar. Also the Advanced-N 6200 Wifi by Intel has amazing range and pick up.

For one, comparing the integrated Intel GMA5700MHD to the semi-discrete 320M isn't really a good comparison. You'd really have to compare between the discrete model of the T410s and the 320M, in which case they're pretty much on par.

The bezels on the T410 and T510 are pretty much exactly where I'd like to see them kept for the next generation; they're not too thin as to merge the screen contents with the surrounding environment, nor too thick to make it unsightly. The unbalanced bezel on the T400 doesn't really bother me either though, so it might just be a point of personal preference. The thicker bezel probably makes the display stronger though. That said, I'd like to see a return of the beveled edge.

I personally have the scroll bars set to their maximum size in the TrackPad panel; I'm primarily TrackPoint unless I feel like flipping through webpages (scrolling direction reversed). Haven't had any problems with it after messing with PalmCheck and sensitivity.

There is a reason why laptops aren't supposed to be made that thin. No one that I know of (not even Apple) can violate the laws of aero and thermodynamics just yet.

By the way, the T410s has a CFRP lid structure. The magnesium is for the motherboard (lower chassis) only.

I'd like to see potential solutions for the paint wearing off the corners. Perhaps photo frame-esque corner bezels? (Actually, that'd be pretty ugly most of the time)

A resounding NO to integrating solid state memory. It's like making your system into one of those embedded point-of-sale terminals with no hope for upgrades. I also prefer my platter drives, a lot cheaper, bigger capacity, and insignificant (to me, don't start a flame war again) performance benefits. Choice and configurability is a highlight of ThinkPads (Have you seen the model list for SONY's?); leave the choices open.

I've actually witnessed an HP 8440p which is 16:9 with 1600x900, and it's quite usable, and the PPI does not feel too high (though I have only briefly examined it). At least it gives you extra horizontal space to somewhat compensate for lost vertical space in 1400x1050.

Why are there screens with 1050 pixel vertical resolution, at that point they may as well have 1080 to match video (and I guess some slightly odd horizontal resolution).

If you go with 1080 the horizontal resolution is going to be 1920. That's going to make the pixel density quite high on a 15" notebook. I prefer 4:3 screens as well, but I wonder how much of it is because the software template is now oriented that way with the information on the top or bottom of the screen, which makes more sense on a 4:3 screen. Some software, Photoshop comes to mind, where tools are placed on the side, benefits a wide screen. Perhaps as software ages software makers will become more hip to this and start orienting things this way. I really prefer a good screen more so than the shape. To me the fact that it's increasingly difficult to get one is more troubling than the aspect ratio of the screen. Give me a good screen and a decent way to scroll, and I'm a happy camper.

amardeep wrote:Why are there screens with 1050 pixel vertical resolution, at that point they may as well have 1080 to match video (and I guess some slightly odd horizontal resolution).

FWIW, most 1080p videos are not really 1080 pixels tall.

I want my FV panel back !!!

I'd pay just about anything for a new Thinkpad with a 4:3 Flexview display.

If they can't put a decent screen in it, they shouldn't bother.

textpxy wrote:I'd pay just about anything for a new Thinkpad with a 4:3 Flexview display.

At least on the W series
I'm ready for spending a few more bucks for a 4/3 or WUXGA FV display

why is 4:3 aspect ratio such a big deal? why so many people not like 16:9

Although 16:9 may be useful for watching movies and playing games (read: consumer multimedia), it's horrible for working with documents due to it's vertically challenged stature. Either you zoom out and lose detail or fit page width and do a lot of vertical scrolling. The same applies for viewing webpages.

For reference: This is my usual browsing state:


Note how the browser chrome has been reduced as much as possible, the taskbar hidden and the maximized window state set to a roughly 4:3 size (which also lets me view my sidebar).

dallascowboys wrote:why is 4:3 aspect ratio such a big deal? why so many people not like 16:9

Primarily because 4:3 provides more vertical space than 16:9. Consider the resolutions commonly available for 4:3 (almost completely discontinued, except on a few Panasonic laptops), 16:10 (was very common for several years but now also getting phased out), and 16:9 (the current norm) panels for small, mid-sized and large laptops:

Small laptops:
1024x768 (4:3)
1280x800 (16:10)
1366x768 (16:9)

Medium laptops:
1400x1050 (4:3)
1440x900 (16:10)
1600x900 (16:9)

Large laptops:
1600x1200 (4:3)
1920x1200 (16:10)
1920x1080 (16:9)

For small laptops (typically 12" or smaller), 16:9 is actually better than 4:3 because the former is much wider while being the height. But for medium and larger laptops, 4:3 offers more vertical real estate, so one can view more lines of text in a document or on a web site.

For me, 1920x1200 is the best because it's both wide enough for side-by-side viewing, and gives as many pixel rows as 1600x1200. That's why I bought my Dell Latitude D820.

pianowizard wrote:For me, 1920x1200 is the best because it's both wide enough for side-by-side viewing, and gives as many pixel rows as 1600x1200. That's why I bought my Dell Latitude D820.

why not a T500/W500 instead?

erik wrote:why not a T500/W500 instead?

My D820 looks much nicer, and cost me only $331.50 shipped. The specs aren't as good as those of a T500 or W500, but still excellent -- I think it's the most powerful computer I have ever owned. But the main reasons were looks and wanting to try something non-Thinkpad.

T 42p 15' 1600x1200 :dpi 133- 33cm x 26,8 x 3,1 x 2,4 Kg
T 60 15' 1400x1050 :dpi 117- 33 x 26,8 x 3,1 x 2,8 Kg
T 500 15'4 1600x1050 :dpi 129- 36 x 25,5 x 3 x 2,8 Kg
T 410 14 1280x800 :dpi 107- 33,5 x 24 x 2,8 x 2,4 Kg
T/W510 15'6 1600x900 :dpi 117- 37,3 x 24,5 x 3,2 x 2,7 Kg
W510 15'6 1920x1080 :dpi 141

Personnally,my present T60p SXGA 1400x1050 dpi:117 is perfect for my eyes which are,Tx God, pretty good
Let's compare his 33x26,8 cm with a 37,3x24,5 (yes,2,3cm less...ie <1 inch) dpi 141 for the 1920x1080 !

Rochefort wrote:T 42p 15' 1600x1200 :dpi 133- 33cm x 26,8 x 3,1 x 2,4 Kg

Since you are talking about 15", the weight is 2.8kg.

dr_st wrote:Since you are talking about 15", the weight is 2.8kg.

For my use the weight isn't a issue but the W510 depth of 24,5 cm is really one coz a 144 dpi

How about giving us an IPS quality screen instead of the POSes that ship in all the Thinkpads these days. That's their biggest detractor in my view.

CoolRunnings wrote:How about giving us an IPS quality screen instead of the POSes that ship in all the Thinkpads these days. That's their biggest detractor in my view.

Hear hear
I don't understand why we can't have IPS on our >1K€ notebooks tough we can find 200€ monitors !??? I'm ready to spend a few more bucks for an IPS notebook display
.